TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>State Legislature's Power to Regulate Molasses Affirmed by Supreme Court</h1> <h3>SITARAM & BROS. Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN</h3> SITARAM & BROS. Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 1995 AIR 356, 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 278, 1995 (1) SCC 257, 1994 (6) JT 629, 1994 (4) SCALE 602 Issues:1. Competency of State Legislature to enact Amendment Act2. Repugnancy of Amendment Act with Industries Development Regulation Act and Molasses Control Order3. Interpretation of relevant constitutional entries and provisionsCompetency of State Legislature to enact Amendment Act:The case involved a challenge to the validity of an Amendment Act passed by the State Legislature under Entry 33(a) of the concurrent list of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court had previously declared the Amendment Act valid, except for certain conditions of licenses. The appellants contended that the State Legislature lacked the competence to enact the Amendment Act as it related to the regulation of Molasses, which they argued fell under the purview of the Central Government's control. However, the Supreme Court held that the State Legislature was competent to enact the Amendment Act under Entry 33 of the concurrent list, as Molasses is a by-product of the sugar industry, which is covered by the State List entries relating to intoxicating liquors. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the competence of the State Legislature to enact the Amendment Act.Repugnancy of Amendment Act with Industries Development Regulation Act and Molasses Control Order:The appellants further argued that the Amendment Act was repugnant to the Industries Development Regulation Act and the Molasses Control Order, both enacted by the Central Government. They contended that the addition of Molasses in the Rajasthan Excise Act through the Amendment Act conflicted with the provisions of the Molasses Control Order. However, the Supreme Court found no inconsistency between the two laws, as they operated in different fields and did not collide. The Court held that the State Legislature had the authority to regulate the import, export, transport, or possession of Molasses within the state, and the Amendment Act did not encroach upon the domain of the Molasses Control Order. Consequently, the Court concluded that both laws could coexist harmoniously without any conflict, upholding the validity of the Amendment Act.Interpretation of relevant constitutional entries and provisions:The Supreme Court analyzed the constitutional entries under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India to determine the legislative competence of the State Legislature in enacting the Amendment Act. It highlighted the distinction between the powers of the Parliament and the State Legislature in regulating industries and trade under different lists. The Court emphasized that the State Legislature's authority to legislate on intoxicating liquors, including Molasses, was distinct from the Central Government's control over industries like sugar production. By interpreting the relevant constitutional provisions, the Court affirmed that the State Legislature's enactment of the Amendment Act fell within its legislative competence under Article 246(3) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals challenging the validity of the Amendment Act, ruling in favor of the State Legislature's authority to regulate Molasses within the state.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
